Spain, Sweden, and Turkey join the Axis

[Rex Romanum]

Let's say that Spain, Sweden, and Turkey decide to join the Axis Powers, sometime between the invasion of France and the invasion of Greece.

Will they serve as significant boosts for the Axis?
Assuming that the Allies are still going to win, will they be able to launch successful invasions of those three countries?

[sharlin]

Whilst an interesting concept for the three countries its suicide. Spain and Turkey's militarys were 3rd rate, at best and Swedens military whilst modern for the time is absolutely tiny.

Spain is madly dependent on Imports to feed its people and keep the country running and would be blockaded in short order.

[raniE]

Hmm, if Spain joins, the Brits could be in some real danger in the Med. If Spain is in then Gibraltar is threatened. On the other hand, Spain is situated prett precariously. The Spanish colonies will be gone pretty soon, and if/when the Americans show up, Spain is probably going to take the place of Italy as the "soft underbelly".

edit: and yes, Spain would suffer enormoudly from the lack of imports, especially considering as the situation the country was in without joining the Axis was not exactly rosy, following years of civil war.

Sweden joining the Axis, especially in that timeframe, seems unlikely to say the least. Sweden is in no shape militarily to join in any offensive war, has been at peace since the Napoleonic wars, has a policy of neutrality, has a democratically elected social-democratic prime minister, and is somewhat insured from a German attack by the ability to destroy the iron mines in the north that are supplying Germany's war effort. If you want Sweden in the Axis, you'd be better off going with Sweden joining Finland in the Winter War.

If Sweden were to join the axis, expect no changes other than maybe a few token soldiers on the eastern front, most likely helping the Finns in the continuation war. Sweden most likely won't get invaded by the allies, seeing as how the Red Army stopped in Finland and didn't occupy it, and Norway wasn't liberated by force.

I don't know enough about Turkey at the time to say, but I don't think they ever showed any inclination to join the Axis, being closer to the USSR. If they joined, and later wound up fighting the USSR instead of refusing to fight the USSR, the Germans could station troops in eastern Turkey prior to an attack toward the Baku oilfields. But how many troops would be needed, and what other part of the front would the Germans take them from? Would this slow other parts of the advance?

[Jeremy Lin]

Spain entering the war could actually help the French, as they are retreating from Paris to set up a base in the Pyranness and continue on the war from there.

[Hkelukka]

If you want the "party" line:

No change, USA still occupies whole europe! Oorah and all that.

Occupying both the Suez and the Gibraltar and getting Sweden into the war fully is ofcourse going to have no effect, axis will probably lose in 1942 due to "Nazi's are so incompetent"

Personal opinion:

German strategic victory in ww2.

Lets see: Sweden joining pushes Finland into the "Let's e go" mode and they join fully in Leningrad and Murmansk. Sweden deploys perhaps 75% of its active army to the various Axis fronts, keeping the rest in reserve. Sufficient to cause Murmansk, Murmansk-Rail road and Leningrad to fall in 1941.

Turkey joining the Axis pushes the pro-axis rebels in the mid-east into overdrive, potentially causing the pro-axis Iran/Persia to also join, though very unlikely. More important than anything else is the logistics to the mid-east that now open up. Combined with the flood of Turkey-Axis units down from Turkey the middle-east falls to the axis before end of 1941. Potentially much much sooner.

Spain joining the Axis pushes Portugal very likely into the war as well. The two provide exquisite U-Boat bases and cut off the Med to Allied shipping and seize Gib.

War ends either in 1941 or 1942. With the european war coming to an end after Axis manage to push UK out of mid-east and position themselves for either an invasion through Iran/Persia into India with Japanese backing, or seek to re-liberate Ethiopia and move south through the Nile.

The added manpower, industry and resources would shift the war so greatly into the Axis favor that by the time the US enters the war it will be unable to produce goods quickly enough to prevent both the British and the SU bailing from the war entirely, and try as you might the US and the disorganized commonwealth forces at this point would be unable to stand their ground in any protracted ground conflict with the axis well into 1944-1945, by which point at the absolute latest, the soviet will collapse thanks to the roughly 1-2 million more men deployed by Germany and the loss of the Iran convoy route due to Turkey and Spain helping Italy eliminate the allied control over the middle east.

In short, if you add Turkey and Spain, Axis wins, if you add just Turkey or just Spain it will probably slightly raise Axis chance of victory, but not much.

Sweden is a nice bonus but counts for very little alone. But if you add Swe-Turk-Spain you will have a very strong additional axis power.

Assuming the allies win, it will be over a glowing Europe sometime in the 1950's.

[Astrodragon]

Given that for any of these countries joining the axis requires a level of insanity in their leaders of the sort that leads them to invade the Frisian Islands, just WHY would they???

Countries dont join wars just for yuks, there has to be something in it for them, or their leader.

[Hkelukka]

Since OP didnt ask for "think of a reason why" just "what happens IF" I dont focus on the why.

All 3 joining?

Spain given enough concessions in Africa + say, Franco dies during the war and some redicilously pro-Axis guy gets to power during the civil war.

Turkey given all arab majority areas in the middle east outside of Africa from Turkey to Yemen.

Sweden i got nothing for. Nothing short of a POD in the political climate that goes back quite a long ways would convince them to join. That or SU being stupid enough to actually escalate the winter war with more "accidental" bombings.

[Monty Burns]

Given that for any of these countries joining the axis requires a level of insanity in their leaders of the sort that leads them to invade the Frisian Islands, just WHY would they???

Countries dont join wars just for yuks, there has to be something in it for them, or their leader.

This.

Now assuming an ASB does this: The Axis get a significant boost for a Mediterranean strategy. The addon of these countries could be sufficient to throw the Brits out of the Med. IMHO that could be sufficient to throw Britain out of the war - but only if by then the Axis didn't declare war on the US or the Soviets, which is highly unlikely.

Against hte Soviets, I don't see a significant contribution by either of these. In fact if Britain or the US are still in the war Spain and Turkey will need German help for defense, reducing the available ressources on other fronts.

[Tyr]

The only remote possibility I could see out of the three is Sweden getting dragged into things as a semi-axis member through getting more involved in helping Finland.

[PenguinOverlord]

Hmm...Spain prob did not have the military power to do so, but if they had a bit more formidable military, then they could have probably got France from the south west, and even could have potentially got Portugal.

Sweden I dont think would have have much impact because of the geographical location of it, and they would have to sail to even get anywhere beside Finland. They could have potential to take over Denmark, however, since their military was tiny and militia based, this is unlikely.

Turkey could have brought the war to the middle eat easily if they joined the war. They could have gotten more territory for the Axis, and perhaps they could have invaded the part of Asia that Japan didn't get.

[mowque]

If you want the "party" line:

No change, USA still occupies whole europe! Oorah and all that.

There is a reason it is a party line.


Personal opinion:

German strategic victory in ww2.


Let's see how this plays out....

Lets see: Sweden joining pushes Finland into the "Let's e go" mode and they join fully in Leningrad and Murmansk. Sweden deploys perhaps 75% of its active army to the various Axis fronts, keeping the rest in reserve. Sufficient to cause Murmansk, Murmansk-Rail road and Leningrad to fall in 1941.

Maybe? Maybe not, how many troops can Sweden really send, supply and arm? Let's talk hard numbers here. How effective are Swedish troops going to be?

Turkey joining the Axis pushes the pro-axis rebels in the mid-east into overdrive, potentially causing the pro-axis Iran/Persia to also join, though very unlikely. More important than anything else is the logistics to the mid-east that now open up. Combined with the flood of Turkey-Axis units down from Turkey the middle-east falls to the axis before end of 1941. Potentially much much sooner.

All this does is piss of the Vichy French in Syria and such. Turkey does not have the ability to just 'flood the middle east'. Not against British military power in Mesopotamia, and the fact that most Turks will stay home for when the USSR moves against them.

Spain joining the Axis pushes Portugal very likely into the war as well. The two provide exquisite U-Boat bases and cut off the Med to Allied shipping and seize Gib.

Portugal isn't automatically pushed. Germany already had great ports due to France. Spanish ports are going to be poorly run, poorly armed and full of Allied spies.

War ends either in 1941 or 1942. With the european war coming to an end after Axis manage to push UK out of mid-east and position themselves for either an invasion through Iran/Persia into India with Japanese backing, or seek to re-liberate Ethiopia and move south through the Nile.

None of this helps Rommel in Egypt or Libya.

India? You are crazy.

The added manpower, industry and resources would shift the war so greatly into the Axis favor that by the time the US enters the war it will be unable to produce goods quickly enough to prevent both the British and the SU bailing from the war entirely, and try as you might the US and the disorganized commonwealth forces at this point would be unable to stand their ground in any protracted ground conflict with the axis well into 1944-1945, by which point at the absolute latest, the soviet will collapse thanks to the roughly 1-2 million more men deployed by Germany and the loss of the Iran convoy route due to Turkey and Spain helping Italy eliminate the allied control over the middle east.

Britian is not quitting and the USSR can't bail, the Nazi's simply won't let them. And the USSR is not going to fall under Nazi power, not when they have to send troops to help Spain and Turkey now.

[von Adler]

Any Swedish alliance with Germany is only possible as a result of a direct allied invasion post-April 1940. Any Swedish politician arguing for allying with the occupiers of Denmark and Norway would be deposed almost immediately.

[Grimm Reaper]

Talk about burdens on Germany between Spain's lack of so many basic needs and a majority of Turkey's army lacking rifles...

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Didn't Spain just emerge from the Spanish Civil War? And why would Turkey join the Axis?

[KyleB]

I think the Murmansk railroad could be cut, and that would be important, but then, Murmansk only accounted for about 25% of military aid to the USSR. Keep in mind that the addition of Swedish troops in Finland would further tax the area's poor logistical system. A capture of Murmansk would be extremely unlikely in 1941, but the railroad might be cut. A useful benefit would be the diversion of Swedish aircraft to assist the operatiosn up north, where the Germans only allocated 60 for the entire sector.

As for Leningrad, I don't see why the Germans would waste Swedish troops in a frontal assault when they didn't do that in OTL.

One possibility is that Hitler would send Swedish troops to defend Norway to free up German troops for Barbarossa.

Still, I don't see why Sweden, or any of these countries for that matter, would declare war. They don't have much to gain at all.

One more thing, why are we assuming that the declaration of war from Spain would necessarily entail the collapse of Gibraltar? It was well fortified with direct access to the most powerful navy in the Atlantic.

Other than that, mowque pretty much hit the nail on the head already.

[Catspoke]

The only way I could see Spain joining in is if France continued to resist in June 1940 and the Germans were thus wiling to offer a chunk of France, Morroco and part of Algeria to Spain, Franco would have to have some delusional moments to even think about it but since Mussolini was delusional in June 1940 maybe its possible.

Instead of the Battle of Britain, the Germans move as much airforce as they can supply into Spanish Africa and southern spain and try to secure the area.

[mowque]

Talk about burdens on Germany between Spain's lack of so many basic needs and a majority of Turkey's army lacking rifles...

I tried to address this, but thanks for making it more clear.



One more thing, why are we assuming that the declaration of war from Spain would necessarily entail the collapse of Gibraltar? It was well fortified with direct access to the most powerful navy in the Atlantic.

I don't know much about Gibralter, but it's importance is somewhat overstated. Most WW2 material went around the Horn, not through the Med, which was a war-zone.

Other than that, mowque pretty much hit the nail on the head already.Thank you.

[kellineil]

In terms of accesibility, the Iberian penisular might as well be an island. It's much easier to supply and support military forces on it by sea than by land, even in the 1940s. What does this mean? More fronts for German forces to be expended on (at the very least a Portugese front and a Gibraltan front). Even if British forces can only maintain a slim beachhead they will maintain it as they will be far more easily supplied than any Axis force can be. As I always say, great logistics beats great tactics (The Nazis never did learn this in ww2).

For Turkey, they have a very long land borders with the USSR, British Empire and French Empire. Once Syria either goes Free French or is taken by the Free French, Turkey will go down the pan. Again logostics is the key, the Allies have better logisitics than the Axis here.

For Sweden - they aren't vulnerable to the Allies the way that Spain and Turkey are but they aren't strong enough to significantly change the balance of things

In the final analysis, if these three countries join the axis it will delay the end of the war a bit, maybe even long enough for Berlin to get a dose of instant sunrise, but the Axis still loses

[Faeelin]

Why would Sweden join the Axis? It was quite happy to provide them with araw materials in OTL. It has no territory to gain.

So...

[raniE]

Why would Sweden join the Axis? It was quite happy to provide them with araw materials in OTL. It has no territory to gain.

So...

You'd really have to get Sweden into the Winter war first. If you do that, and the winter war still has the same basic outcome, you might see Swedish participation in the Continuation war. Still unlikely, but far more likely than Sweden just up and declaring war on all of Germany's enemies.

[Faeelin]

You'd really have to get Sweden into the Winter war first. If you do that, and the winter war still has the same basic outcome, you might see Swedish participation in the Continuation war. Still unlikely, but far more likely than Sweden just up and declaring war on all of Germany's enemies.

I suppose you could get that if the Finns lost the Winter War, but I don't think that's what people have in mind...

[MikeTurcotte]

If you want the "party" line:

No change, USA still occupies whole europe! Oorah and all that.


I'm not a member of the party, but yeah, I don't think Turkey, Spain and Sweden can strategically impact US production at all, so USA wins.


Occupying both the Suez and the Gibraltar and getting Sweden into the war fully is ofcourse going to have no effect, axis will probably lose in 1942 due to "Nazi's are so incompetent"


Grabbing Gibraltar is fully possible with Spain in the Axis; I fail to see how those three countries increase Tobruk's or Benghazi's port capacity. I will concede that a 'flank' attack from Turkey through Syria to grab either Mideast oil or rear-strike Suez is interesting. But the same logisitical concerns remain; the RN will still enjoy unchallenged command of the sea, and America has plenty of oil.


Personal opinion:

German strategic victory in ww2.


Not possible. The USA is simply too strong.



Lets see: Sweden joining pushes Finland into the "Let's e go" mode and they join fully in Leningrad and Murmansk. Sweden deploys perhaps 75% of its active army to the various Axis fronts, keeping the rest in reserve. Sufficient to cause Murmansk, Murmansk-Rail road and Leningrad to fall in 1941.


Murmansk is iffy for the Soviets then, yes, but the Axis lack the logistics to get to Archangelsk. Leningrad would be a charnel-house; yes the Swedes and Finns take it, no they don't have armies afterward. Just ask Romania about assaulting large Soviet cities.


Turkey joining the Axis pushes the pro-axis rebels in the mid-east into overdrive, potentially causing the pro-axis Iran/Persia to also join, though very unlikely. More important than anything else is the logistics to the mid-east that now open up. Combined with the flood of Turkey-Axis units down from Turkey the middle-east falls to the axis before end of 1941. Potentially much much sooner.


The 'rebels' in the MidEast hated the Ottomans (Turkey) far more than the ever did the British and French. The Turkish Army is 1940 was about 25 divisions; mostly deployed along the frontiers with the USSR and Greece. While they could redeploy to Syria, how much logistical support do they have, and how much can they move? Not much.


Spain joining the Axis pushes Portugal very likely into the war as well. The two provide exquisite U-Boat bases and cut off the Med to Allied shipping and seize Gib.


While I don't understand why Portugal would join the Axis, the Med could get very unfriendly to the Allies. Gibraltar would probably fall. Of course, the Horn of Africa is still there, and Gibraltar is not between North America and the UK.


War ends either in 1941 or 1942.


Why? Britain is in essentially the same poisition, even without Egypt, and the USSR faces a few more Axis minors. Neither has the need to surrender, and the USSR doesn't have that option. Both would have contingincy plans for the scenario the OP described (presuming these three countries didn't just wake up and join the Axis for no reason) and be prepared for it.


With the european war coming to an end after Axis manage to push UK out of mid-east and position themselves for either an invasion through Iran/Persia into India with Japanese backing, or seek to re-liberate Ethiopia and move south through the Nile.


Now we've entered the realms of logisitical fantasy. An invasion of India though Iran. Wow. The last European to even TRY that was Alexander the Great - and he failed. Good luck Adolph, with THAT overland supply line.


The added manpower, industry and resources would shift the war so greatly into the Axis favor that by the time the US enters the war it will be unable to produce goods quickly enough to prevent both the British and the SU bailing from the war entirely, and try as you might the US and the disorganized commonwealth forces at this point would be unable to stand their ground in any protracted ground conflict with the axis well into 1944-1945, by which point at the absolute latest, the soviet will collapse thanks to the roughly 1-2 million more men deployed by Germany and the loss of the Iran convoy route due to Turkey and Spain helping Italy eliminate the allied control over the middle east.

In short, if you add Turkey and Spain, Axis wins, if you add just Turkey or just Spain it will probably slightly raise Axis chance of victory, but not much.

Sweden is a nice bonus but counts for very little alone. But if you add Swe-Turk-Spain you will have a very strong additional axis power.

Assuming the allies win, it will be over a glowing Europe sometime in the 1950's.

Allright, this last part is just plain nuts. As noted, the UK and USSR ain't leaving. The Sweden+Turkey+Spain production is way, way, way less than Canada's, and doesn't significanty shift the economic balance.

The key to Allied success in WWII is a combination of technology, production, and strategic mobility. Sweden Spain and Turkey do not change this paradigm. Realistically, Spain adds that much more coastlin for the Atlantic Wall to guard.

Mike Turcotte

[The Sandman]

Sweden is actually the easiest of the three to draw into the war; just have the Franco-British plan to land at Narvik and then seize the Swedish iron mines get moved up so that it happens before the German invasion of Norway renders it moot. The Swedes won't exactly be comfortable in the Axis, but just rolling over and accepting the invasion of their country and the destruction of one of the pillars of their economy doesn't seem like a viable option to me.

Spain and Turkey are much harder. The Spanish have just come out of three years of civil war, and they aren't in any condition to lend much more than OTL's token support to the Axis cause. Turkey would need to rearm a significant portion of its military, has relatively little to gain, and since the infrastructure in eastern Anatolia was in the main poor to nonexistent they wouldn't actually be that useful as a vector to invade the Caucasus or Iraq.

Honestly, I can't see either of them coming into the war until they're absolutely sure who's going to win (as was the case with Turkey IOTL). So in order to make this work, you probably have to have the Germans knock Britain out of the war sometime in 1940, at which point Sweden has already been dragged in and Spain is likely to jump in so they can make a claim on Gibraltar at the peace talks. Turkey might then go for Mosul, since it doesn't cost them all that much if the Empire is coming apart thanks to the fall of Britain.

[raniE]

It seems to me that there is a slight possibility of the UK suing for peace if Spain joins the war and manages to take Gibraltar in early summer of 1940, and Churchill does not get the PM spot, although that would require an earlier POD (on the other hand, so would Spain joining the war most likely). In that case, US logistical and industrial superiority doesn't really matter, as it won't be joining a war that's already over. It seems likelier that the UK will stay in the war however.

[Don Grey]

axis still loses it just takes longer so germany might get nuked. All this does is have germany take the baku oil fields and you increase the size of the soviet horror show. I dont know about sweden but spain had just come out of a costly civil war and franco wasnt stupid he would make outlandish demands that could never be met and if met make more. Turkey is however the least likely to join as ataturk specificaly said not to join the next great war and people are forgeting greeks and armenian horribly ravished anatolia. Turkey just did not have the any intention of joining another war.

[Don Grey]

The 'rebels' in the MidEast hated the Ottomans (Turkey) far more than the ever did the British and French. The Turkish Army is 1940 was about 25 divisions; mostly deployed along the frontiers with the USSR and Greece. While they could redeploy to Syria, how much logistical support do they have, and how much can they move? Not much.


Where the hell did you get that from?

[Saepe Fidelis]

The Turks wouldn't want war because the Turkish Republic was explicitly anti-Ottoman; Ataturk's politics was explicitly non-interventionist and anti-imperial; the Republic believed in national self-determination and non-intervention. The entire military and state ethos was one of armed neutrality.

[Blackfox5]

While the political shock would be staggering, none of this changes the strategic situation of the war.

Sweden, Turkey, and Spain have very little ability to project power, and their participation in the war will have negligible results.

Spain may get Gibraltar, but loses its entire colonial empire. Spanish Morocco, the Canaries, and probably Majorca are all lost in return. Plenty of British bases now available in the western Mediterranean. The Axis don't gain any advantage other than some nice airbases in a forward position, but those planes still need to be moved from somewhere else - so what aren't they bombing if they are in Spain?

In addition, the likely reason Spain would join the Axis would be if Hitler agreed to give French possessions to Spain. If so, almost all of French colonial Africa declares for the Free French. If done too early, it is almost a given that France never signs an armistice and continues to fight and completely eliminates the Vichy state. (If Spain's entry causes Portugal to declare for the Axis as another poster stated, again all that means is Portugal loses its colonial possessions, especially the Azores, very quickly.)

Turkey will create some difficulty in the Middle East, but basically has too inferior an army to really create trouble. It's major use would be to serve as a base to attack the Soviet Caucasus.

Sweden offers very little. Some additional troops to attack the Soviets on the northern front.

None of this changes the war fundamentally although during the war there would be a lot more scares.

Even if we assume that Sweden and Turkey joining the Axis doesn't cause Stalin to be smarter, the extra forces available to the Axis against the Soviets still don't knock the Soviets out of the war. Attacking in the mountainous Caucasus is going to be horrendous. Even if bolstered by some German mountain divisions, the Turks aren't going to seize Baku.

Even if we assume a stunning defeat in the north, losing Leningrad or even Murmansk isn't going to knock the Soviets out of the war. There is still Archangel for the arctic convoys, and most support is being sent by the Indian Ocean/Persian or Vladivostok routes. The Soviets will be beat up a bit more, and have more ground to gain. But all a Soviet delay does is mean the Western Allies liberate more territory that historically went to the Soviets.

Once the US gets into the war, Hitler has a large coastline he can't adequately defend. If French Africa hasn't already declared for Free France, then Torch still happens. If French Africa is part of the Allied cause, then November 1942 might see American and British landings on Spain with the intention of holding a base south of the Pyrenees. No matter how much the Americans still need to learn, the US and UK will pound Franco's army into oblivion very quickly.

The postwar world will be different of course. Turkey will either become totally Sovietized or at least lose its eastern half as the Soviets make an expanded Armenia. A return to the Spanish Republic. More non-Communist countries in Eastern Europe. A very tortured postwar history in Sweden as people wonder what the government was thinking.

[Pikers3]

The only way I could see Spain joining in is if France continued to resist in June 1940 and the Germans were thus wiling to offer a chunk of France, Morroco and part of Algeria to Spain,

I doubt Franco would do this. He knew how weak his country was after the civil war and war would probably cause republicans to come back out of the woodwork financed by the British.
Also I doubt Franco would go for bits of Mainland France. Southern France has lots of Basques and Catalans who he didn't like and he wanted to keep Spain as one nation with the Castillians as a majority and adding a couple of million pissed off French/Occetians wouldn't help that.

You would also have to deal with the British and Gibralter, Spain is very vunarable to attack from the sea and the Spanish army was probably at one of its weakest points and the country was unstable as the republicans were still around

[tchizek]

The other thing that nobody has talked about (that I have noticed) is logistics and production. Basically Span and Turkey are resource sinks for at least the first two years they are in the Axis. They are in horrible shape for military production and Span is importing on the order of 60% of its food. So...Germany is going to have to make that up, plus enough to equip the Spanish and Turkish forces to levels where they are useful for modern warfare.

As for taking Gibraltar there is the little problem of the Spanish transport system being completely trashed (OTL it was not rebuilt to pre-Civil war levels until the mid 1950s). Trying to support a full scale assault on Gibraltar is a non-trivial exercise needing several divisions, several artillery brigades and several dozen squadrons of air support. The fort there was a very hard target, supporting that level of army over Spanish roads w/o improving the roads means that quite a bit of Spain will be going hungry if they don't finish quickly - which is frankly unlikely. This could very quite possibly kick of round 2 of Spanish Civil war. There are lots of reasons that Franco stayed out of the Axis - he knew all of this and didn't want to risk kicking of that second round of the war.

As for Turkey, the Arabs really really didn't like the Ottomans - which is what they saw Turkey as. They are likely to see any attempt by Turkey to attack the Middle East as an attempt to regain the Ottoman Empire and wow - you will see the Arab Nationalists switching sides back to the Allies as fast as you can say "Ottoman Empire" none of them, and I mean none of them want the Empire back. And they will not believe a word that the Turks say about not wanting the Empire again, too much history there, and it hasn't been long enough since the Ottomans were "The Empire" in the middle east in the early 1940s to have anyone forget. There are still people alive who fought the Ottomans in WWI alongside the British at that time.

Then lets talk about the Turkish transport infrastructure. Frankly it makes Spain's look good even after the SCW. You might, maybe, possibly be able to support a single non-mechanized army either the Middle East or in the Caucasus through Turkey. You couldn't support both. It would take several years of major effort to upgrade this. And if I were Turkey I would be asking for this as part of the agreement to join...

So you have
1) A drain on German resources to feed Spain.
2) A drain on German resources to Arm Spain and Turkey.
3) A possible new Spanish Civil war if Germany jumps in to take Gibraltar before upgrading the Spanish transport infrastructure, or a delay while they do upgrade the infrastructure (that points the British to exactly what the Germans are doing...).
4) A drain of German resources to upgrade Turkish transport infrastructure - or you can't make use of the wonderful land routes you have just gotten.
5) You just pushed the Arab Nationalists you were supporting against the British to switch back to the British by bringing the "Ottomans" in on your side.

I think there are more negatives than positives...

[Don Grey]

The Turks wouldn't want war because the Turkish Republic was explicitly anti-Ottoman; Ataturk's politics was explicitly non-interventionist and anti-imperial; the Republic believed in national self-determination and non-intervention. The entire military and state ethos was one of armed neutrality.

this.

As for Turkey, the Arabs really really didn't like the Ottomans - which is what they saw Turkey as. They are likely to see any attempt by Turkey to attack the Middle East as an attempt to regain the Ottoman Empire and wow - you will see the Arab Nationalists switching sides back to the Allies as fast as you can say "Ottoman Empire" none of them, and I mean none of them want the Empire back. And they will not believe a word that the Turks say about not wanting the Empire again, too much history there, and it hasn't been long enough since the Ottomans were "The Empire" in the middle east in the early 1940s to have anyone forget. There are still people alive who fought the Ottomans in WWI alongside the British at that time.


Where are you guyz getting this from?

[tchizek]

Where are you guyz getting this from?

History, up until 1918 the Ottoman Empire (which was the precursor to modern Turkey) controls all of the Middle East and ruled as a traditional Empire. Large parts of the early 20th century before WWI involved the Turkish core of the Ottoman empire putting down nationalist movements in parts of the empire. Just because they share a religion did not make them friends, the Ottomans and the Arabs and the Persians historically really didn't get along very well.

[Brady Kj]

http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=210914

I tried an Axis Spain in this thread. But everyone agreed it was very bad for the Axis.

[juanml82]

Airbases in eastern Turkey should allow for German bombers to attack Baku. Why would the turks join the axis, though, no idea.

[Hkelukka]

Sorry for the long post! :)

The reason most people fail to see why Sp-Sw-Tu joining would be a major boost is that they are used to the 1944 ww2 situation, not the 1940-1942 ww2 situation.

IF the war stretches to 1943-44 then yes, the US production numbers are going to have a serious effect on the war, and potentially eventually turn it into an axis defeat.

But until the increased US production starts having a serious effect on the European theather, thats not the real question is it.

The real question is how long do you give the Axis powers to fortify Europe before the US enters the war, and just how determined the US is to slug it out.

We know in hindsight that as long as the going was good, the US would stay in the war. So, lets then safely say that the US is unlikely to accept a peace unless left entirely alone, and at which point it would be NK-SK style "peace"

The real effect of Spain joining is the shortening of the Axis defensive perimeter from the entire Med coastline to just the E-med coastline. Since no Allied amfb convoy would try to run the two blockades(gib/sicily). Gib falling is irrelevant as long as the function of Gib can be filled without Gib itself. In other words. IF you use airpower to firstly force the fleet away from Gib (or turn it into one giant one-sided sinking match if the UK tries to hold onto the naval presence in Gib for months) you can effectively blockade both Gib and the entire W-med

The presence of Gib would of course inhibit axis shipping through the straits as well, but that is of far lesser importance since its possible to unload cargo anywhere in Spain-France and move it overland to any Spanish-French Med city and reload there. It would be a logistics hassle but still, hardly a major setback.

It would be entirely possible for the Axis to ignore the Spanish railroad infra and use the port system. It might not be pretty but it can be done.

So, Spain joining secures the entire W-Med from any allied invasion until either Sicily or Africa falls to the Allies.

The only really threathened Spanish area would be the Canaries. And if you have ever been to those islands, you'll agree when I Say, good luck in trying to mount a succesful amfb operation against a Axis military that is determined to hold onto the islands. In 1943-44 it might be possibly but absolutely not in 1941 or 42. The UK simply doesn't have the naval power required to both project aerial superiority and secure the landing zones against the massive German response that would follow any attempt. And you don't start island hopping if you got a land border with the Axis, which the UK would have.

The next question is if Spain closes the W-Med and Turkey joins is it enough to force the UK out of the Suez. The UK Would make it the fight of its life but it might not be enough. It would go on for months but if it doesn't work for the UK, then its game over.

Because the occupation of the Suez would allow every single axis unit in the med to be moved to E-Front, no need to garrison anything in the med anymore. Combined with the now entirely secure South-European industry that the UK just can not hit. There goes the Ploesti oil raids and the constant threat of air attacks against Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and so on.

While Turkey and Spain are both militarily relatively small, the impact they can have IF they both focus on 1 thing at a time is massive.

Spain will be able to render W-Med inaccesible to the allies, and it will be able to hold onto the Canary islands well into the 1943 giving the UK a serious headache. Especially if Germany stationes 200 or so dive bombers for anti-convoy duty with secondary emphasis on attacking any invasion fleets.

So, Spain provides a incredibly good Anti-Convoy base in the Atlantic, and frees the entire W-Med from axis having to garrison any of it. In exchange for requiring food imports and possibly some help with its atlantic wall. IF it can actually spare units its a slight bonus, the main effect being the Gib-Med-Canary

Same applies to Turkey, militarily mostly irrelevant its position allows it to play a key strategic role. The UK position in the Mid-East at about the first battle of El-Alamein was precarious. The addition of even one fully armored German corps in Iraq supported by luftwaffe from its Turkish airbases and with what ever secondary turkish land units that can be spared would be a serious problem. Add to that the already brewing anti-UK sentiment in the middle east and the possibility of German armies swooping in, the situation might be entirely un-managable for the UK.

It's impossible to say with certainty but judging by the military situation after Rommel was sent to Africa, the addition of losing the Gib and Axis forces advancing south through the mid-east the UK might actually lose its middle-east holdings.

Once again, this is mostly relevant because it allows the axis units to redeploy from the E-Med to either Eqypt-Sudan border or the E-Front. Even if they later lose the Suez again, it is possible to destroy the channel so entirely that it will take months if not years to open again.

While both Turkey and Spain are militarily relatively small on their own, the opportunities to the axis that they provide, are massive indeed.

Swedens major commitment would be in resource production for its axis partners, such as food. But it could mobilize about 400.000-1.200.000 million men of various quality between 1940 to 1945 while being at peace. Certainly not a massive amount but well motivated and lead, could flip the favor in a few major engagements, not enough on their own but still, quite good.

It all depends on the POD that is used to allow the three to join.

The following might be accetable:

Winter war escalates and Sweden joins the war, later the two join the axis in later 1940 or early 1941. Followed by both having a massive re-armament similar to what Finland had in 1940.

Franco dies during the SCW and the new guy in charge is pro-axis instead of pro-neutrality and eyes the war looking for a good opportunity to join. Spends 1-2 years after SCW to fortify its atlantic coast, prepare to invade gib and fortify Canary and expand the airbase and ports there.

Turkey is a bit more difficult so I cant really say.

---

TL:DR:

Spain secures W-Med and allows axis units there to transfer to the E-Front.
Spain offers Canary islands to the Axis for U-Boat and Dive Bomber use.
Spain shortens the Axis defensive perimeter from the W-Med to simply the Spanish atlantic Coast.

Turkey offers the Axis a real shot of taking the Suez.

Sweden offers the Axis a increased food + resource production and enough extra force to take both Leningrad and Murmansk when combined with the inherent increase in the Finnish desire to fight.

The three combined would allow such a additional deployment of force against the SU in 1942 that even the vaunted Red army would be on the ropes.

In 1942 you might be looking at a situation where the UK has not won a major engagement in the war other than BoB and has lost every major land engagement with the Axis from the start of the war.

Where the SU has lost Leningrad, Murmansk, Stalingrad and by the 1943 spring is facing a three directional push towards Moscow.

The UK would be very hard pressed to stay in the war and by 1943 spring the USSR might not be alive in any real way outside of Moscow and Siberia.

[Don Grey]

History, up until 1918 the Ottoman Empire (which was the precursor to modern Turkey) controls all of the Middle East and ruled as a traditional Empire. Large parts of the early 20th century before WWI involved the Turkish core of the Ottoman empire putting down nationalist movements in parts of the empire. Just because they share a religion did not make them friends, the Ottomans and the Arabs and the Persians historically really didn't get along very well.

History? that pretty vogue.Thats not even an answer. The proper answer is your making asumptions realying on half-turths. There was no turkish core. And there was no "Arab revolt" in a fashion victorian history discribes it as. Your confiusing the deliousional dreams of imperial grandure that one hashmate sherif hand with a hand full of bedouins that were promised land money and title. Ottomans only put down christian nationalist movements there was no arab nationalist revolt that the ottomans put down. More arabs died in the med east fighting for the ottoman caliph then against him.

[Don Grey]

Airbases in eastern Turkey should allow for German bombers to attack Baku. Why would the turks join the axis, though, no idea.

Mustafa kemal built quite a bit of infrastructer in anatolia from roads brigdes to rails. How ever still not on par with say the soviets. I dont know why turkey would join the axis when they didnt even join the allies while they had figured out they would win. Turkey's sole perpose of the time was rebuilding there nations. They also required no land as as ww1 greeks and armenians seriously depopulated anatolia to a point the idea of lebansraum would be laughable. Only way turkey joins the axis is stalin goes of the deep and and tries a mass invasion of turkey. And this will only get you a finland-like turkey. Not realy in axis nations but just doesnt want to be absorbed by the soviets.

[Hkelukka]

Mustafa kemal built quite a bit of infrastructer in anatolia from roads brigdes to rails. How ever still not on par with say the soviets. I dont know why turkey would join the axis when they didnt even join the allies while they had figured out they would win. Turkey's sole perpose of the time was rebuilding there nations. They also required no land as as ww1 greeks and armenians seriously depopulated anatolia to a point the idea of lebansraum would be laughable. Only way turkey joins the axis is stalin goes of the deep and and tries a mass invasion of turkey. And this will only get you a finland-like turkey. Not realy in axis nations but just doesnt want to be absorbed by the soviets.

Only reason would be, far as I can tell, if the Arabic population of the Mid-East are far more succesful in their revolts and instead of opting for nationalism, they opt for a return of the arabic/muslim unified nation/kaliphate, modeled after Germania.

So, assume that Turkey is slightly less isolationist, but not by much, the Iraq revolts and the general area are far more volatile, and the people in the area beg to be re-admitted into unified Arab state lead by turkey.

Assume that the UK then cracks down hard on said revolts, as they did historically and the SU is somewhat stronger in its demand for Kars and that Germany offers Turkey control over the middle-east again, and offers Vichy France a return of several French core areas such as return of Paris in exchange for Syria-Lebanon being handed over to Turkey.

ITs a stretch but its not impossible.

[Magnum]

Mustafa kemal built quite a bit of infrastructer in anatolia from roads brigdes to rails. How ever still not on par with say the soviets. I dont know why turkey would join the axis when they didnt even join the allies while they had figured out they would win. Turkey's sole perpose of the time was rebuilding there nations. They also required no land as as ww1 greeks and armenians seriously depopulated anatolia to a point the idea of lebansraum would be laughable. Only way turkey joins the axis is stalin goes of the deep and and tries a mass invasion of turkey. And this will only get you a finland-like turkey. Not realy in axis nations but just doesnt want to be absorbed by the soviets.

Regarding a scenario where Turkey would join the axis.

How about something to do with the Greco-Turkish war after ww1 ? Bad luck, infighting and stupid mistakes on the Turkish side, a better showing by the greeks and much, much more support from the British, all leading to Greece keeping a foothold in Anatolia and a revanchist Turkish regime that hates Greece and Britain with a passion.

[Strategos' Risk]

Sweden joins Central Powers in WWI because of Admiral Essen, then joins Axis in WWII because somehow the Norsefire Party becomes a real thing and takes over the government.

Turkey and Spain both joined the Axis in Shattered World, someone rebut that timeline.

[Hkelukka]

And, people, keep in mind that Sweden had been at peace and well managed for about a 100 years with a massive capital stockpile that could be used in re-armanent prior to joining similar to how Finland re-armed in the 1940-1941.

The army it had at peace time is another matter entirely compared to what would have happened if they went apeshit like Finland did and spent every penny they could spare in their military. A great Scandinavian spirit that pushes Sweden and Finland into a joint front against the SU will see Sweden spending massive amounts of money on a crash-rearmanent program. Money that Sweden has that countries like Turkey or Spain dont have.

[LordInsane]

Sweden joins Central Powers in WWI because of Admiral Essen, then joins Axis in WWII because somehow the Norsefire Party becomes a real thing and takes over the government.
A) You are assuming that the Great War would go as OTL in an Admiral Essen scenario. If Sweden had joined of its own volition, that may have been a reasonable assumption, but the Essen Scenario will have other repercussions.
B) The link between the Essen Scenario and the 'Let's Reuse The Name Of Something From A Comic, Despite That There Were Native Parties That Would Fit Better' Party rising and taking over the government is, frankly, in need of significantly more elucidation than "somehow".

[Strategos' Risk]

What else would you call a Nordic fascist party?

[Don Grey]

Only reason would be, far as I can tell, if the Arabic population of the Mid-East are far more succesful in their revolts and instead of opting for nationalism, they opt for a return of the arabic/muslim unified nation/kaliphate, modeled after Germania.

So, assume that Turkey is slightly less isolationist, but not by much, the Iraq revolts and the general area are far more volatile, and the people in the area beg to be re-admitted into unified Arab state lead by turkey.

Assume that the UK then cracks down hard on said revolts, as they did historically and the SU is somewhat stronger in its demand for Kars and that Germany offers Turkey control over the middle-east again, and offers Vichy France a return of several French core areas such as return of Paris in exchange for Syria-Lebanon being handed over to Turkey.

ITs a stretch but its not impossible.

This could work but it is a stretch.

Regarding a scenario where Turkey would join the axis.

How about something to do with the Greco-Turkish war after ww1 ? Bad luck, infighting and stupid mistakes on the Turkish side, a better showing by the greeks and much, much more support from the British, all leading to Greece keeping a foothold in Anatolia and a revanchist Turkish regime that hates Greece and Britain with a passion.

The greeks were genocidal in there aspiriations to creat megala idea. A better showing would have millions of turks liquadated which would make turkey weaker thus even more of drain on the axis. In an attempt to get revenge they could would wipe out the greeks and hitler wouldnt care hell he might send some SS to asist and show them how its properly down. If greece ever gets occupied by axis like in the otl it would be ass bad as what happend to the jews that is if the greeks and armenians have left the muslims with a leg to stand on. I think this is just making ww2 an even worse horror show of then it already was. The greeks dont have the population and reasource to maintain and protect large holding in asia minor and because of geopghraghy any smaller one such as just holding on to symyrna would get over run quite fast even if it wasnt for mustafa kemal. To push them back the entente would have to to go for total war agains what remaind of the ottoman empire marching deep into the harsh interior of anatolia ,which the entente did not want to as public wanted an end to war and they no longer had the means. And if they do, do that it makes turkey even less then a rump state which makes them even more of drain on axis. I think Hkelukka makes more sence is it more belivable and easyer to accomplish but i still firmly belive axis lose. Spain gets of lucky by just western occupation while turkey and finland and swedden gets abosrbed by the soviet empire wholely or partialy. either way very bad deal for turkey and sweden.

To get turkey in a entente you must make ww1 less costly and as well as the independence war or buttle fly the independence war. Since turkey has been seriously wounded to a point there still licking there wounds they became very anti-interventionist anti-irredentist anti-war. while in turth mustafa kemal and the nationalist originaly wanted western thrace some of teh eagean island northern iraq azerbeyjan and persian azerbeyjan. But givent he current conditions and there state at the time they just wanted an ende to the wars.

[LordInsane]

What else would you call a Nordic fascist party?
National Gathering/Unification. Other than that, it would tend to depend on which Nordic country is in question - for obvious reasons, Neo-Swedish People's League fits well for Sweden, not so well for Denmark or a pan-Scandinavian/Nordic movement.

[Uff Da the optimist]

History? that pretty vogue.Thats not even an answer. The proper answer is your making asumptions realying on half-turths. There was no turkish core. And there was no "Arab revolt" in a fashion victorian history discribes it as. Your confiusing the deliousional dreams of imperial grandure that one hashmate sherif hand with a hand full of bedouins that were promised land money and title. Ottomans only put down christian nationalist movements there was no arab nationalist revolt that the ottomans put down. More arabs died in the med east fighting for the ottoman caliph then against him.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. There were several rebellions and rebellious factions calling for independence against the Ottoman Empire long before WW1. Egypt tried becoming independent and almost succeeded, but became a protectorate of the UK.

If there was no wish for independence, how do you explain all the arabs that rebelled during WW1?
There was serious ethnic tensions between turks and arabs, mostly because the arabs were treated like second-class citizens for centuries.

If you do not believe me, please look it up.

[raniE]

What else would you call a Nordic fascist party?

You would call it something that makes sense? "Norsefire" makes no sense in Swedish, as there is no commonly used equivalent of "norse", as in a separate word for the people living in Scandinavia in the viking era, in Swedish (nordmän exists, but is neither widely known nor used). Neither does it fit the naming scheme of existing parties, both minor and major, at the time. Party names were and are usually descriptive, including a central ideology and a word like "party" or "union" or similar.

The major parties at the time were the Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party, The General Electoral League/National Organization of the Right, Farmer's League, The Liberal People's Party, The Socialist Party, The Communist Party of Sweden.

Real national-socialist and fascist parties at the time in Sweden had names like "National socialist People's party of Sweden", "Swedish National Socialist Party" or "Sweden's National socialist worker's party".

edit: Vidkun Quisling's Norwegian fascist party was called Nasjonal Samling, or National Gathering/National Unity.

A name like Norsefire is pure fantasy.

[tchizek]

History? that pretty vogue.Thats not even an answer. The proper answer is your making asumptions realying on half-turths. There was no turkish core. And there was no "Arab revolt" in a fashion victorian history discribes it as. Your confiusing the deliousional dreams of imperial grandure that one hashmate sherif hand with a hand full of bedouins that were promised land money and title. Ottomans only put down christian nationalist movements there was no arab nationalist revolt that the ottomans put down. More arabs died in the med east fighting for the ottoman caliph then against him.

Sorry, I had/have about 10 minutes to answer. There was no single Arab revolt yes, however there were several nationalistic revolts that happened in what is now Egypt, Iraq and Syria in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Ottoman Turks were not a particularly nice set of Imperial masters, they continued to function like it was the 12th/13th century right up until the early 20th century. Very few of the "man on the street" middle-easterners would really have wanted the Ottomans back if offered the chance in the early 1940s. They wanted no outside masters and the Ottomans were seen as just as much outside masters as the British, and at least the British were willing to talk about leaving. The Ottomans had been there for over 500 years and if they came back they were likely to not leave.

[Don Grey]

Sorry, I had/have about 10 minutes to answer. There was no single Arab revolt yes, however there were several nationalistic revolts that happened in what is now Egypt, Iraq and Syria in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Ottoman Turks were not a particularly nice set of Imperial masters, they continued to function like it was the 12th/13th century right up until the early 20th century. Very few of the "man on the street" middle-easterners would really have wanted the Ottomans back if offered the chance in the early 1940s. They wanted no outside masters and the Ottomans were seen as just as much outside masters as the British, and at least the British were willing to talk about leaving. The Ottomans had been there for over 500 years and if they came back they were likely to not leave.


I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. There were several rebellions and rebellious factions calling for independence against the Ottoman Empire long before WW1. Egypt tried becoming independent and almost succeeded, but became a protectorate of the UK.

If there was no wish for independence, how do you explain all the arabs that rebelled during WW1?
There was serious ethnic tensions between turks and arabs, mostly because the arabs were treated like second-class citizens for centuries.

If you do not believe me, please look it up.

I have no idea where the hell you guyz are getting this from. Look it up is not an asnwer i coudl just as easly tell you the same. If your relying on victorian era bais history then were going to hjave problams. The egyption rebelion was not one of nationalism and teh arabs didnt see the ottomans as turkish. Call an ottoman a turk you would likely get slapped in the face for insulting the man. The arabs didnt rebel in ww1. oh for god sakes how man time as this been repeated in this board. the attemps of one sherif that wanted to be king with a handfull of mercenaries does not consitued a nationalist rebelion not to mention if you had called what you call an arab today an arab during the ottoman era again you would slapped in the face for insulting him. There was absolutly no ethnic tention between arabs an turks. Ethnic nationalism didnt effect the muslims at the time. The concepts of what is a turks and arab wasnt the same back then. and no the arabs were never treated as second class citizen. They were considered mohammed people and arabic was one of the langauges of the ottoman empire.

The least privalged class of the ottoman empire were the turks considered nothing but backwards redneck anatolian peasents.

You two guys understanding of the ottoman empire is so ass backwards i dont even know how to fix it.This is what happens when you study ottoman history from wikipedia.

[mowque]

TL:DR:

Let's go through this again.

Spain secures W-Med and allows axis units there to transfer to the E-Front.
Spain offers Canary islands to the Axis for U-Boat and Dive Bomber use.
Spain shortens the Axis defensive perimeter from the W-Med to simply the Spanish atlantic Coast.What units exactly are transferring? Surely the Germans would LOSE troops in having to now guards Spain and, in your mind, Portugal.

I agree that Canary Islands would be a pain but the British would take them before the Germans would have a chance to enforce it. Even in OTL.."During the Second World War, Winston Churchill prepared plans for the British seizure of the Canary Islands as a naval base, in the event of Gibraltar being invaded from the Spanish mainland." It was a discussed option and would be enacted quickly, probably with Portuguese help.

Turkey offers the Axis a real shot of taking the Suez.How? You haven't explained how a Turkey that is hated by the Arabs (and the Vichy French), bordered by a now angry USSR, and with a terrible rail network, is going to cross the Mesopotamian desert.

Sweden offers the Axis a increased food + resource production and enough extra force to take both Leningrad and Murmansk when combined with the inherent increase in the Finnish desire to fight.This is the best point, but do these too cities really matter? And taking such massive targets will effectively destroy the Swedish forces.

The three combined would allow such a additional deployment of force against the SU in 1942 that even the vaunted Red army would be on the ropes.Yes, it was on the ropes in OTL, but how does this help take Moscow, or convince the Russians to give up? As long as you have the SS butchering people, you only increase there will. And Russia doesn't get any smaller, or the Russians any less formidable fighters.

In 1942 you might be looking at a situation where the UK has not won a major engagement in the war other than BoB and has lost every major land engagement with the Axis from the start of the war.How does this change North Africa? The logistics haven't changed. Also, there will be the usual Operation Ironclads and the like. And a Germany distracted with Spain, Turkey and Sweden might have a different success in Greece and the Balkans.

Where the SU has lost Leningrad, Murmansk, Stalingrad and by the 1943 spring is facing a three directional push towards Moscow.Yeah, how about no?

The UK would be very hard pressed to stay in the war and by 1943 spring the USSR might not be alive in any real way outside of Moscow and Siberia.

None of the allies fix the main strategic problems facing the Nazi war machine, in regards to these two enemies. Not to mention, the USA will only support the UK even more.


P.S. My first AH thread was on this same subject.

[sendô]

Sweden - is there a benefit to the Axis having Sweden as an ally? They were already selling the Germans all the raw materials they wanted. You might get a few divisions of Swedish troops to help back Finland against Leningrad, but is it enough to make a difference? Even if Leningrad did fall, what strategic difference does it make to the outcome of the war given what would later happen at Stalingrad and Kursk? Sweden joining the Axis would be like Ireland joining the allies.

Spain - well as we all know Spain was a nation that had just enjoyed 3 years of highly destructive civil warfare. Their infrastructure was buggered, they had an experienced but war weary and poorly equipped army, a navy vastly inferior to the RN, and plenty of republicans at home that would gladly cause problems for the regime with British backing. It is also very dependant on not only food imports but oil imports from the US, which would very quickly dry up and would add an additional drain to the stretched German supplies.

However they do have the strategic bonus of holding both sides of the entrance to the Med. Britain's hold over Gibraltar is tentative at best. The Germans had several plans throughout the war to pass through Spain and take Gibraltar. Even with the guns of the RN it's difficult to see Britain holding onto the rock long term. This loss coupled with the ever increasing difficulty of running the blockade into the med makes supplying Malta, Cyprus and the BEF in Egypt this way more difficult if not impossible in the long term, potentially jeopardising these.

Of course the flip side to this is Britain pushed Italy back across Africa largely because they were inept, and it took the Germans to reinforce them to balance the two armies. Germany isn't going to be able to spare any more forces once they've invaded the USSR, so it remains for Spain to back Italy up. Regardless, Britain can still back it's Egyptian army up via the India ocean and the Suez canal if necessary.

The canary islands would become important as a potential submarine base for the axis to raid British shipping, or for the the British as a key stop on the convoy route. There'll be a rush after Spanish entry between the Germans wishing to reinforce and the British wanting to take the islands, although given the topography they could be difficult to hold long term.

However as long as Britain can achieve the key objectives of holding the middle east and taking the Canaries, once America enters the war there's only one winner. Spain offers extra man power and resource but it also means more territory to defend, and Spain is a much better "soft underbelly of Europe" for the Allies to invade than the narrow, mountainous Italian peninsular.

As for Turkey, well they didn't have much of an army or infrastructure. Any additional forces moving into the Balkans or through the Caucasus in support of Axis invasions is going to be negligible, the former as it would fall anyway, the latter as it is mountainous with poor links leaning to long supply lines, and at the end of it is Stalingrad. Throwing a few hundred thousand Turkish troops into the slaughter is only likely to lead to early Turkish withdrawal.

The only real benefit for Turkey other than claiming some spoils from Greece is an invasion of the middle east. Aside from the issues that would arise with their purported allies Vichy France, the British forces in the region might well still prove too strong for them. Nonetheless the combination of Turkey attacking from the north, Italian forces attacking across north Africa back by both German and now Spanish forces, and the logistical issues caused by the loss of Gibraltar and the closing of the entrance to the med could lead to an Axis victory in the middle east.

Of course the strategic value of this is questionable - the chances of being able to drive through Iran into India are slim, supplying an army over that length of difficult terrain would be nearly impossible. Threatening Russia through the Caucasus makes little difference - the Germans still managed to take Stalingrad without this added route, holding the middle east wouldn't stop the Red Army encircling them and crushing the 6th Army. The real bonus would be oil, the Axis would have lots, and the impetus would be on the Allies to take the region back.

Long term I still see an allied victory. The Germans aren't going to be able to win a war of attrition against the USSR the same as Japan isn't going to win a war of attrition against the USA. Germany still needs to starve out Britain to knock them out of the war as they can't invade by sea, and even with the canaries this isn't that much more likely to happen.

[Uff Da the optimist]

You two guys understanding of the ottoman empire is so ass backwards i dont even know how to fix it.This is what happens when you study ottoman history from wikipedia.

No need for language of that sort, and my source is not from Wikipedia.
What is your source, I'd really like to know.
Here is mine: http://www.arabsahistory.com/

A really detailed and good book written by an expert of arab history.
I really recommend it, it's a good read.

[tchizek]

I have no idea where the hell you guyz are getting this from. Look it up is not an asnwer i coudl just as easly tell you the same. If your relying on victorian era bais history then were going to hjave problams. The egyption rebelion was not one of nationalism and teh arabs didnt see the ottomans as turkish. Call an ottoman a turk you would likely get slapped in the face for insulting the man. The arabs didnt rebel in ww1. oh for god sakes how man time as this been repeated in this board. the attemps of one sherif that wanted to be king with a handfull of mercenaries does not consitued a nationalist rebelion not to mention if you had called what you call an arab today an arab during the ottoman era again you would slapped in the face for insulting him. There was absolutly no ethnic tention between arabs an turks. Ethnic nationalism didnt effect the muslims at the time. The concepts of what is a turks and arab wasnt the same back then. and no the arabs were never treated as second class citizen. They were considered mohammed people and arabic was one of the langauges of the ottoman empire.

The least privalged class of the ottoman empire were the turks considered nothing but backwards redneck anatolian peasents.

You two guys understanding of the ottoman empire is so ass backwards i dont even know how to fix it.This is what happens when you study ottoman history from wikipedia.

Interesting, I didn't look on Wikipedia or online at all this is based on my reading over the last few decades. Not a quick lookup, I actually find your read on this completely backwards and am wondering where you got your information. There were ongoing tensions in EVERY empire that was built in the middle ages, the Ottomans just lasted longer. Some of the Arabs were privileged, some of the Turks were privileged. When I say "Turks" I was referring to the country of Turkey which in the minds of the Arabs in the 1940s would very easily take the place of "Ottomans" as the invaders. You are pointing to WWI, I mentioned WWI in passing. Most of the rebel movements that I talked about happened between 1860 and 1913 and there were (If I recall correctly) 6 of them in different parts of the Ottoman empire. Completely separate from the issue of WWI and the British supported rebels.

You seem to think the Middle East would welcome Turkey with open arms, I disagree. Do you have any evidence beyond saying that my understanding is backwards?

[wietze]

In order for sweden to join the axis the british would have to beat the germans in invading norway. If this allied invasion would result in sweden going axis there is a very distinct chance that churchill would never become PM of britain, the butterflies of this are big. there could be a british PM that is somewhat more tempted to negotiate in a later stage.
2nd a allied invasion of norway (and consequently swedens iron producing area) would make it more difficult for roosevelt to aid the british because this invasion would offset the political effects of the invasion of poland, i could imagine that a few more politicians in the us would lean towards isolationism.
So lets say the british invasion occurs before april 9th 1940, the more before that date (the invasion of denmark was on the 9th) the more butterflies. I could imagine no invasion of denmark because sweden is now in the axis. If this would influence fall gelb i don't know, but after getting sweden on their side they might operate slightly more political than strategic and bypassing the netherlands like they did in 1914.
What could sweden influence, like another poster suggested they could be very helpful in conquering the kola peninsula and with it murmansk, which would makegetting lendlease (if it even exists in this scenario) to the ussr.
In otl stalin was almost at the brink of giving up, and being enveloped from the north too could just be the straw that broke the camels back.

[Uff Da the optimist]

The Egyptian nationalist party "Wafd" advocated independence from foreign rulers, and not too long after several similar movements had risen in other middle eastern terriotories.
How is that not dissent towards the "Sublime Porte" in Istanbul?

Interesting, I didn't look on Wikipedia or online at all this is based on my reading over the last few decades. Not a quick lookup, I actually find your read on this completely backwards and am wondering where you got your information. There were ongoing tensions in EVERY empire that was built in the middle ages, the Ottomans just lasted longer. Some of the Arabs were privileged, some of the Turks were privileged. When I say "Turks" I was referring to the country of Turkey which in the minds of the Arabs in the 1940s would very easily take the place of "Ottomans" as the invaders. You are pointing to WWI, I mentioned WWI in passing. Most of the rebel movements that I talked about happened between 1860 and 1913 and there were (If I recall correctly) 6 of them in different parts of the Ottoman empire. Completely separate from the issue of WWI and the British supported rebels.

You seem to think the Middle East would welcome Turkey with open arms, I disagree. Do you have any evidence beyond saying that my understanding is backwards?

Also, seconded.

[BlondieBC]

Sweden joins Central Powers in WWI because of Admiral Essen, then joins Axis in WWII because somehow the Norsefire Party becomes a real thing and takes over the government.

Turkey and Spain both joined the Axis in Shattered World, someone rebut that timeline.

Sweden joining the CP in WW1 means no WW2 as we know it. Unless one assumes the Russians ignore the Swedes and the Swedes are purely passive, it has large impacts on WW1. There have been several threads on what the Swedes do, and how the Russians and UK counter react. Below is what i consider pretty safe in most POD.

1) Russians send extra forces to Finland compared to OTL, 2-4 corp, 6-14 divisions.

2) Russia was in the middle of a complicated mobilization plan in 1914. When the order to start moving the first extra divisions to Finland, there will be fewer forces either against Ottomans (least likely), A-H, or Germany. Whichever power faces the weaker Russian Army will do better than OTL.


A) Ottomans - Least likely since Russia stripped off many units anyway in OTL. But if this does happen, the Ottomans stabilize the Russian Front in 1914/1915, and it is not the festering sore of OTL. By the end of the war, this will have butterflies in Iraq and Palestine. Turkey, perhaps even the surviving Ottoman Empire, will be radically different.

B) A-H: Possible, but a little less likely than Germany. A-H does not come near as close to collapse. Italy entering the war becomes much more questionable. A-H does not lose so much of its skilled troops early and its units are much, much better throughout the war. Better A-H units mean higher Russian casualties, means Russia does not fall apart in exactly the same way. Lenin may remain a very, very obscure historical figure.

C) Germany - More since some units were pulled out of Finland to reinforce 1st and 2nd Army. Germany does not have near as much pressure to pull units from Western front, and the whole war looks different. Many, Many moving parts, flocks of butterflies.

D) Russia does not send 4th Army to Poland, but uses part of it to reinforce Finland. Most likely in my opinion due to way war plans were setup. You get a little bit of B, little bit of C. Flocks of butterflies.

[sendô]

So lets say the british invasion occurs before april 9th 1940, the more before that date (the invasion of denmark was on the 9th) the more butterflies. I could imagine no invasion of denmark because sweden is now in the axis. I can't see it. Both the Germans and the British knew the strategic importance of Norway. If Germany held it then it gave them key ports that would enable them to get into the north sea and raid allied shipping. If the British held it then it enabled the allies to flank Germany and threaten the supply of Swedish iron ore. If Britain (and France) launch a full invasion of Norway, the Germans are not going to rely on Sweden to fight the allies, nor are they going to rely on amphibious landings as OTL due to the strength of the RN. They're going to make certain. Denmark fell without a fight OTL, the Germans knew they'd steamroller through, there's no reason for them to bypass the Danes.

[Don Grey]

No need for language of that sort, and my source is not from Wikipedia.
What is your source, I'd really like to know.
Here is mine: http://www.arabsahistory.com/

A really detailed and good book written by an expert of arab history.
I really recommend it, it's a good read.

I can just as easly provide sources and unlike a book parroting half truths which has been parroted befor is not that convincing and it being a best selling book is laughable. the conception of arab nationalist revolt was cemented during the cold war when pan-arabisim was trendy. So thus like nationalist movements they look back at history from the gogles of nationalism to justify there current reality and state then there is the cult of lawrance. The arabs died by the thousands trying to defend what was left of the empire against the invading powers there were also incidences such the Senussi movement when arabs (proper term would muslims) out side of the empire like in egypt with the senussi movment tried there best with what little they had to support the empire. This concept of arabs being treated as second class is also insutling as it was the arabs after the conquest of memluks that turned the turks and ottoman empire into sunni orthodoxy along with that arab culture music food langauge had far more of an effect on the empire then then turkish/turkic culture ever did.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4283869 this is just one off the top of my head.

[Nassirisimo]

Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism only became significant after the Ottomans lost World War 1. Although I don't think that by the 40's, the Arabs would welcome Turkish invaders, to say that there were "many" revolts against the Ottoman authorities in majority Arab lands that were motivated by nationalism is just plain wrong. The only significant Arab revolt of the period (Mehmed Ali in Egypt was Albanian, not Arab, and was not leading a nationalist revolt) was the Arab revolt in World War 1, and the vast majority of participants in that were not inspired by nationalism, but simply looking for opportunities to loot.

There is also the fact that many times more Arabs fought in the Ottoman army in World War 1 than against it. They did not receive bad treatment from the Ottoman Empire, as they were quite loyal as subjects. After 500 years of rule, by a power who, lets not forget, was headed by the Caliph, the Arabs had no reason to doubt the Ottoman Empires status as their legitimate government, especially when they were actually better in many regards then most modern day governments. For example, when dealing with their Shia minorities in Iraq, instead of oppression and sometimes murder that many modern Arab governments use, the Ottomans instead tried a policy of inclusion, that went as far as renovating the shrines of Imam Ali and Hussayn.

In regards to the rest of the thread, I doubt any of them would join. Turkey and Spain are just too threatened by the United Kingdom. Whilst Turkey could make some not-so-lucrative initial gains in the Middle East, the British could easily defend the important parts, and when the inevitable counter-offensive begun, the Turks would only have a chance at defending themselves if they gave up their gains and focused only on mountainous Anatolia.

Spain, as has been pointed out, has recently come out of a brutal civil war, and is in no position to fight a war on this scale. Simply put, any rewards they could gain from it would not be worth the enormous risks, as well as the extra strain it would put on Spanish society.

[Hörnla]

To put this on another rail instead of harking back and forth - I would like to remind you to consider that the OP sees these nations entering the Axis after the Fall of France but before the invasion of Greece. If I read this as the Italian invasion of Greece, then we are in the summer of 1940, at a point of time when Britain virtually stands alone and itself has very little possibilities to act or react in short term. France has fallen and Vichy is established. And the Soviet Union is a firm and valuable ally of Germany.

That means the OP intensifies the avalanche of Nazi-successes from 1938-40. Contrary to what we know about the high improbabilities of final Nazi-victory, contemporaries at that point of time were not so convinced. For everybody with De Gaulle's or Churchill's optimism you might find a sceptic and a defeatist. For a drastic example, take a look at ambassador Kennedy's opinions on Britain. If e.g. Churchill doesn't become PM, but someone else who finds himself simply unable to project the image of an ultimately victorious Britain, leaders all over Europe might have an even worse impression of the situation (I am not talking the cliché of Halifax rolling over).

A nation raising it hands to ally with Berlin at this point of time would not anticipate five years of apocalyptical warfare, but some token business against a soon negotiating Britain - and a place on the right side. OTL Franco was smart to realize the actual situation. If he had joined the Axis at Hendaye and Spain got smacked in 1942, today's historians would judge that he could have known better, but that his mistake was understandable.

If Germany at this point of time manages diplomatic coups (ASBish POD: rain brains on those Germans responsible for making up a European diplomatic strategy) which bring Sweden, Turkey and Spain into their camp [however improbable that is, but let us assume, as this is the premise], this might also encourage Yugoslavia to join the Axis as it pondered to do (I also deem Portugal as less probable, though if Franco joins, Salazar might go along). That again could have butterflies on the Greek situation.

An intact Yugoslavia, able to deal with Communist partisans on its own, that is an asset for Germany. A shorter, earlier, or maybe avoided war in Greece - that is an asset for Germany.

Won't be enough to bring Britain to the negotiating table, won't be enough to destroy the Soviet Union. But it might make it all a tougher nut to crack. Hard to gauge how the second half of the war would go under these circumstances.

[tchizek]

Just focusing on Spain, the problem is that what Franco wants/needs in order to join the Axis Hitler/Germany just can't give him. Franco wants

1) Land from either France or Italy. Italy would piss off your number one ally to get a new one. France would push the French colonies into British hands.
2) Industrialization, Spain wants investment and tooling to build their industry and they want it now. Germany would have to spend capital that they need at home to build up Spain in order to get them as an Ally.
3) Food, Spain needs to replace the food they are importing. Germany would need to promise - and deliver - food that they don't have.
4) Energy, Spain needs to replace the energy they are importing. Germany would need to promise energy that they don't have. In addition Franco wanted more energy delivered at a lower cost than he was paying on the world market before he was willing to discuss joining.

Those were the minimums just to get Franco to the table. He would want more than this to actually sign the paper. He was a Spanish nationalist first and foremost, he was looking for the best possible deal for Spain and if he could wait and squeeze more out then he would.

[Grimm Reaper]

Actually Franco provided an impossible list of demands and then added to the list out of concern that he had not been sufficiently extreme as to convince Hitler that Spain was not entering the war.

When you consider that Spain needed everything on the list and Hitler's extremely poor record of keeping his commitments...

[tchizek]

Actually Franco provided an impossible list of demands and then added to the list out of concern that he had not been sufficiently extreme as to convince Hitler that Spain was not entering the war.

When you consider that Spain needed everything on the list and Hitler's extremely poor record of keeping his commitments...

Well yes, but he actually needed the above. And he really didn't want another war because it could very easily trigger round 2 of SCW, so he provided an impossible list and kept adding to it. I think the only POD that might work is if Franco was killed near the end of SCW and someone less clever took over. The trouble with this POD is that it would probably prolong the SCW and that has all kinds of butterflies...

[Cook]

Well yes, but he actually needed the above. And he really didn't want another war because it could very easily trigger round 2 of SCW, so he provided an impossible list and kept adding to it.
This is based entirely on claims made after the war by the Franco regime. Franco pressed very hard through 1940 – 42 for German assistance to enter the war and from his public statements and private comments, and his actions supporting the Axis in every way short of an actual declaration of war it’s clear that had he received even some material support in 1940 – 41, he would have entered the war.

[tchizek]

This is based entirely on claims made after the war by the Franco regime. Franco pressed very hard through 1940 – 42 for German assistance to enter the war and from his public statements and private comments, and his actions supporting the Axis in every way short of an actual declaration of war it’s clear that had he received even some material support in 1940 – 41, he would have entered the war.

I think the bold part of your statement is the important part. He walked a tightrope, getting and giving as much support as he could without actually joining the Axis. As much as he liked and admired Germany and Italy he was first and foremost a Spanish nationalist, he was doing what was best for Spain and actually joining the Axis before it was completely and totally 100% obvious that Germany was going to win was not in the cards. It would have taken more than some material support in 1940-41, it would have taken substantial material support for Spain to join. Based on German records of this time, Franco kept changing his "price" to join upward whenever Germany got close to agreement.

[OttomanHat]

The only ones I could see joining the war would be Turkey who who add maybe 15000 troops at most. The real advantage would be a much more concentrated southern East front. Hitler might even be persuaded not to divide his troops and focus on the oil. Turkey itself might either starve out or be much better off depending on the fortunes of war. I foresee Inonu getting killed by a Soviet sponsored party thing and Turkey ending up like Yugoslavia (an un-allied poor communist country) or maybe not.
BTW where do you get the blank map?

[pike]

God dang it I had a huge post ready to go but instead i got this error message.
Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.
My head explodes.:mad:
Can any one help.

[Don Grey]

God dang it I had a huge post ready to go but instead i got this error message.
Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.
My head explodes.:mad:
Can any one help.

Next time when you enter this site remember to press the "keep me logged in" button. And when your making long posts always remember to prediodicaly highlight the post with your mouse and copy just in case you lose it and/or do it right before your press "submit reply"

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

God dang it I had a huge post ready to go but instead i got this error message.
Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.
My head explodes.:mad:
Can any one help.
Anything more than a simple reply, do in a wordprocessor. you don't have to worry about timeouts, your laptop battery going flat, your forum session going inactive, etc.

But ya. Stay logged in. That's a help for posts that were SUPPOSED to be simple but grew like Topsy:)

[Faralis]

Anything more than a simple reply, do in a wordprocessor. you don't have to worry about timeouts, your laptop battery going flat, your forum session going inactive, etc.

But ya. Stay logged in. That's a help for posts that were SUPPOSED to be simple but grew like Topsy:)

Another option is a extension like Lazarus:Form recovery that keeps everything you´ve written in memory.

[Rubicon]

Sweden - is there a benefit to the Axis having Sweden as an ally? They were already selling the Germans all the raw materials they wanted. You might get a few divisions of Swedish troops to help back Finland against Leningrad, but is it enough to make a difference? Even if Leningrad did fall, what strategic difference does it make to the outcome of the war given what would later happen at Stalingrad and Kursk? Sweden joining the Axis would be like Ireland joining the allies.


The amount of raw material that Sweden sold to Germany fluctuated quite wildly during the war. Early war Sweden sold roughly 1/3 of primarily it's iron ore to Germany, 1/3 to the UK and 1/3 to others. After April 9th 1940, it increased to about 2/3s to Germany and 1/3 to others (basically Germany picked up the third that the UK were unable to buy)

In early 1943 Germany's share was reduced to 1/3 again and in October 1944 was completely cut.

However that was only iron ore, Sweden also had (has?) decent amounts of copper ore (which was another raw material in great need in Germany), lead ore and zinc ore.

Overall those three nations would add:
Iron Ore:
Sweden: 9-10 million tons (OTL between 6-3 million)
Spain: 1,1-1-5 millions tons (Spain sold most of it to Germany OTL)
Germany produced 2,2-3,1 million tons themselves

Copper ore:
Sweden: 7,2K-7,5K tons
Spain: 28K-63,7K tons
Germany: 28K-31K tons

Lead ore:
Sweden: 8-9K tons
Spain: 27-116K tons
Turkey: 3-11K tons
Germany: 78-81K tons

Zinc ore:
Sweden: 24-34K tons
Spain: 20-53K tons
Turkey: 3-11K tons
Germany: 165K tons

Chrome ore:
Germany: 0 tons
Turkey: 96-104K tons

Tungsten (scheelite, ferberite, hübnerite or wolfram), not not K, just actual tons
Sweden: 37-110 tons
Spain: 30-153 tons
Germany: 0
(Portugal: 862-1770 tons)

Gold:
Sweden: 6000-7280kg (2/5 out of all Europe's gold production)


Overall those three nations would add quite a bit of raw materials to fuel the war production. Not to mention the absolutely most important thing for Germany: LABOUR

Turkey had about 3 million males aged 20-49
Sweden had about 1,4 million males aged 20-49 with an unemployment rate of ~11%

Unfortunately I don't have any census numbers in Spain (might be cause of a civil war....) nor do I have unemployment numbers from either Spain or Turkey.

[Hkelukka]

The amount of raw material that Sweden sold to Germany fluctuated quite wildly during the war. Early war Sweden sold roughly 1/3 of primarily it's iron ore to Germany, 1/3 to the UK and 1/3 to others. After April 9th 1940, it increased to about 2/3s to Germany and 1/3 to others (basically Germany picked up the third that the UK were unable to buy)

In early 1943 Germany's share was reduced to 1/3 again and in October 1944 was completely cut.

However that was only iron ore, Sweden also had (has?) decent amounts of copper ore (which was another raw material in great need in Germany), lead ore and zinc ore.

Overall those three nations would add:...

Thank you. I wonder how high these could be if all 3 pick a total war footing, instutute a draft and spend 1-2 years before entry into the war optimizing production outputs and training.

Probably a tremendous amount of soldiers.

IF after Munich both Turkey and Sweden think that they will not be able to sit this one out and start to remilitarize citing increased tensions, no one will care, and spain after the civil war spending money on military will raise no eyebrows, considering most of theirs was just spent fighting the population.

They could do it with very little impact on anything.

Say franco dies and soemone else rules spain, a pro-nazi that militarized heavily after SCW ended and joined when Italy and Turkey joined. Turkey was promised mid-east up to africa. Italy was promised africa (not including french of spanish or other axis possessions) and Spain is promised any colonies that the Vichy government cant hold on to and Vichy is promised that they can keep any colonies that dont switch to free-france.

Sweden joins during continuation war because of badly managed UK and USSR scandinavian strategy. Sweden opts to not send forces to any foreign theather but allow axis units to set up volunteer recruitment centers in all major cities and take over all security duties in scandinavia from axis units.

France would not say a darn word about holding onto its mid-east mandates any more than holding onto south-east asia was a real issue. They would do as they are told when it comes down to it, the middle-east was hardly of any importance.

Say that pro-axis supporters in syria-lebanon and iraq stage a coup and officially ask the turkish government for military assistance and assistance in rebuilding and joining the developed nations and germany tells france to suck it up and agree that due to their close nature the vichy government feels that arabs are best lead by other arabs and cite things like Germania and Italian empires as example they could be rewarded by being granted more territories to manage in continental france. Say, the capital for example.

That way with relatively minor adjustements you could get all 3 in and give all 3 at least 1 to 2 years before the war entry to spend their currency reserves buying weapons, getting training and getting ready, similar to winter war -> continuation war.